Why the need for stabilization? Sankara is the first to argue that nothing
needs to be done once jnAna has fully dawned. Indeed, he also says that
after mukti, there is no more individual, so there can be nobody who can
stabilize anything. So, either Sankara is contradicting himself in the
bRhadAraNyaka commentary when he talks of the need for remaining in
AtmaniShThA or else his point is being totally missed here.
> praNAm prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
> prabhuji, IMHO the shankara bhashya on Br.Up. 1.4.7 requires rather a
careful study. The vidhi or we can say sustained effort to *maintain*
muktihood should not be taken literally. This duty is not to be taken as
resting on an original injuction (vidhi), coz. this duty can be considered
as a duty without *doer* as vidya prabhuji rightly pointed out above.
Hence, commentaries like above should be understood without disturbing the
shankara's mUla siddhAnta. So, texts like, a jnAni who has acquired
knowledge of the self alone, he should practise repeated affirmation
(Atma-vijnAna-smRti-saMtati), must be contextually understood as
restrictive injuction, prompting one to adhere strictly to remember the
knowledge of the self, this remembrance happens automatically for him as
this is state is pramAtru, pramANAtIta. Who will be there to put efforts
towards what?? This question may be asked here if the *human effort* is
required to maintain jnAna . So, the knowledge (paramArtha jnAna) one has
already gained does not call for sustained effort to maintain since after
realisation even vedAs are no vedAs then where is the question of injuction
to a jnAni?? If we interpret the above commentary in any other way,
definitely it contradicts the mUla siddhanta of shankara & shruti as well.
Mundaka shruti says one who knows brahman, becomes brahman itself, when
that brahman which is the higher as well as the Lower is seen all his
residual works perish.
> For the greater clarify of the above commentary, parallely we can check
sUtra bhAshya 3-4-47 also.
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar